Non state actors effective at tackling contemporary global issues

Question 1

1) NGOs and Charitable Foundations

Answer 1

For Effective in crisis response, human rights, global poverty:

NGOs’ flexibility → rapid action:
Doctors Without Borders: field hospitals & mobile clinics in Syrian Civil War conflict zones.
Amnesty International: Xinjiang forced labour reports → EU/US sanctions.
Human Rights Watch: Rohingya abuses → legal action; consultative status with ECOSOC → access to UN bodies.
Charitable Foundations’ funding power:
Gates Foundation: billions to GAVI → 1B+ vaccinated, 13M lives saved; drought-resistant crops in Africa → food security.
Ford Foundation: microfinance for small businesses in Bangladesh & India → supports local economic resilience.

Against:

Lack of accountability:
Oxfam 2010 Haiti scandal → exposed weak oversight & eroded trust.
Gates Foundation: distorts health priorities — focus on polio over broader healthcare system reform.
Dependency & undermining local capacity:
South Sudan: NGO-driven parallel governance → weakened local institutions, sustained poverty cycles.
Haiti post-earthquake: aid inflows worsened corruption & social tension.
Donor-driven agendas & short-termism:
Foundations often prioritise visible, donor-friendly projects over long-term, systemic change → undermines sustainability.

Question 2

2) social movements

Answer 2

Effective in raising awareness & driving public debate:

Human Rights Mobilisation:
2024 Gaza protests: global demos → pressured govts on military aid, humanitarian access.
Climate Action:
Fridays for Future: 14M+ people, 7500 cities.
Germany → accelerated coal phaseout + stricter emissions targets.
Sweden → stronger climate framework; net-zero by 2045.
Against:

Limited power to change policy:
Fridays for Future: deep-green calls vs shallow-green real outcomes.
COP26: failed to deliver phase-out of coal or full climate finance commitments → shows resistance of states to radical demands.
Structural limits:
Social movements often lack formal power → their influence is indirect and can be ignored.
Radical aims often clash with states’ and MNCs’ economic interests → reduces effectiveness.
Issues of slacktivism & celebrity focus:
Social media-driven slacktivism → limited substantive engagement.
Celebrity involvement can distort focus, overshadow grassroots voices.

Question 3

3) MNCs

Answer 3

For -Effective in poverty reduction & environmental initiatives (under pressure from social movements):

Poverty reduction through investment & job creation:
Unilever: local supply chains in Kenya & India → supports incomes of small farmers.
Toyota South Africa: vocational training → long-term workforce skill development.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) & environmental progress:
Nestlé Cocoa Plan & Nespresso AAA Program: improves farmer livelihoods in Ivory Coast, Ghana, Colombia.
Fridays for Future influence → companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Unilever adopted carbon neutrality & green energy goals.

Against:

Exploitative labour & deepening poverty:
Foxconn: poor working conditions, low wages in China.
Glencore in DRC: mining → resource exploitation, limited community investment, worsens poverty after exit.
Environmental destruction:
Royal Dutch Shell: Niger Delta oil spills → devastated local livelihoods (fishing, farming).
Superficial CSR / greenwashing:
Nestlé: Cocoa Plan criticised — ongoing child labour in supply chain.
BP: “Beyond Petroleum” PR → continues fossil fuel investment.

Judgement:

MNCs do more long-term harm than good: exploit labour, damage environment, greenwash to mask systemic issues. CSR mostly superficial.